This will be to either remove the feature, alter it, or to provide a reasonable means of avoiding it – or, provide a reasonable alternative way of making the service accessible.

It is important to keep a sense of perspective on this:

• the key requirement is the offering of services to members of the public. If the business on the premises is such that the service user is invited into the premises only by appointment, or conducts his or her business over the phone or Internet, then the likelihood is that there will be no duty for alteration under the Act. Likewise, providing the service by an alternative means may discharge the duty (eg e-commerce, telephone sales, the use of second premises that are DDA-compliant, or adjustments to working practices such as offering a delivery and collection service);
• if, however, the 'service provider' cannot provide the services by alternative means, then the obligation is only to make 'reasonable adjustments' to the premises. Factors that are taken into account in assessing reasonableness will include financial and other costs for making the alteration; whether the alteration will be effective and is practical; the level of disruption caused; the extent of the service provider's financial resources; availability of other financial assistance; and the level of prior expenditure on DDA compliance. Accordingly, the practicality and the cost of works may be potentially decisive factors;
• there are still arguments about how all of this applies to rent reviews. If premises are perceived as not being DDA compliant, then Ts will seek rental discounts because of the anticipated costs of compliance works. But, this presupposes that you can consider the likely nature of the 'hypothetical T's' business. In the case of retail premises it is likely that the general public will need to have access - but even then the need to overcome a physical feature will have to be seen in the light of what is a 'reasonable adjustment'. As far as offices and industrial premises are concerned, it may be that there are no DDA implications if L can show that demand for the premises will come from 'service providers' that do not require the general public to enter their premises.

We have touched on these points before (see, in particular, our October 2003 issue, p24). For a more L-focused commentary see note in [2004] EG 17 January 98. © Practical Lawyer